I've played thousands of hours of Rocket League, but still out of principle had Psyonix refund me after the switch to Epic. Similarly, I had to ask for a refund for my kickstarter backing of Diabotical, a game I do wish to try one day. I understand why James took the money... but it's upsetting that the cost was exclusivity.
It turns out that in a surprising number of cases, you don’t have to. Control, Journey, and Beyond Two Souls (as of this writing, it launched with Denuvo) are all completely DRM Free and will run without EGS. You can download them via the open-source “Legendary” unofficial client, or even in a Virtual Machine if you feel so inclined.
There are a tiny handful DRM-free Steam games but in my experience, it seems to be way more common on the Epic Game Store, particularly for AAA titles. I’m not sure if this was intentional of a happy accident, but it’s caused me to choose EGS for several titles recently. Mind, you still need to check before buying!
https://store.steampowered.com/app/870780/Control_Ultimate_E...
If you buy Horizon: Zero Dawn from Steam, you won’t be able to actually start the game unless Steam is installed. However, if you buy the game from EGS, it work fine even if EGS is not installed. The EGS version is a completely standalone copy of the game that does not require any clients in order to run.
This are a handful of Steam games like this as well. One example I purchased recently is Ori and the Will of the Wisps, which I downloaded in a VM before moving over to my main (Steamless) Windows install. It works fine. For whatever reason, however, this seems to work far more often with EGS games, and I really appreciate that!
Edit: Useful reference https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16BjnaBO40vkt6kFVl0QW...
------
Edit2: By the way, I mentioned in my parent post that Journey was DRM Free on EGS. I have just learned that as of a recent update, saving is broken without EGS (although the game still launches, and you may not need saving given its two-hour runtime).
I'm willing to chalk this up to a bug rather than anything malicious—and of course, the good thing about DRM-Free software is that if you've backed up your old copy, it will keep working, and no one can take it away from you. But, this type of thing is definitely a reason to still prefer GoG and itch.io where possible.
The nature of DRM-Free media is that once I've downloaded it, no one can take it away from me. I may miss out on future updates, but I always make purchasing decisions based on what's available today, and not what may be available in the future. (And I don't play online multiplayer.)
The EGS version of Tetris Effect was DRM Free at launch, but DRM was added in an update. This means I can't recommend Tetris Effect to anyone who cares about clients or DRM—but on a personal level I don't particularly care, because I already got my copy!
Separately, if e.g. GoG was the only PC game vendor, they probably would never have made DRM-Free games a core focus of their business, because why bother when you're the only game in town? And so, I'll always welcome new entrants into the market.
This statement sounds like the "no sugar added" label that you see slapped on high sugar beverages. Yes, there's no added sugar (or DRM), but there's still sugar. It's completely different to no sugar (or no DRM), as is the case with egs (as in, you can launch the executable without egs running), according to https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Control
What issues?
Anyway, having to install a new launcher, as annoying as it is, is a far cry from throwing out your entire phone and all your apps, and buying a different phone (which has many of the same restrictions again).
I don't understand why people keep comparing the iOS App Store to the Epic Game Store exclusives, they not remotely the same.
They has some issues where people could use any email to register an account without verification, leaving thousands (millions?) without a way to register their own valid emails.
They were caught scanning your pc for everything to 'provide a better experience' if you had some things installed.
And if (want to think) they are 'fighting' for openness, 'buying' rights to games and taking them out of other stores.
All of them can be easily googled so not going to spend time providing sources
The closest thing I could find for the registering without verification claim was a Verge article [1] about people's Fortnite account being taken over after clicking a link that was sent to them. If you have a better source please do share.
EDIT: Source has been found, apparently store didn't initially send a verification email so anyone could use any email[4], this has been fixed though. I could find no source for the claim that this affected millions or thousands of people.
As for the claim that they were "scanning your pc for everything", that is just completely wrong. According a few articles [2][3] they were reading your steam friends list after getting permission from the user.
[1]: https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/16/18185398/fortnite-player-... [2]: https://www.slashgear.com/epic-games-store-isnt-spying-but-d... [3]: https://www.pcgamer.com/epic-steam-data-reddit/ [4]: https://twinfinite.net/2020/09/crysis-remastered-ray-tracing...
And the following miriad of people showing that Epic is getting much more info than it says they do, even before asking permission (including even steam's games play time)
(it was the top post for me searching 'epic games store scan entire pc' btw)
Regarding the email thing, I said thousands (maybe millions) as I have no clue of the number, but remember easily over 300 comments in a'me too' kind of way on reddit when this happened.
Edit: even Tim admitted they fucked up after being found: https://www.reddit.com/r/PhoenixPoint/comments/b0rxdq/epic_g...
> The current implementation is a remnant left over from our rush to implement social features in the early days of Fortnite. It's actually my fault for pushing the launcher team to support it super quickly and then identifying that we had to change it. Since this issue came to the forefront we're going to fix it.
The publisher sells their fan base to Epic, and Epic gets a list of potential people they can sell their own crap to, and gets a big install base number they can leverage to convince more publishers to sell them more fan bases.
#1 the publisher wins because they don't like risk in the first place, and free money is free money
#2 epic wins because they build legitimacy and reach, and they sell more fortnite MTX to their burgeoning install base
#3 the developer loses because their brand is tarnished and their potential for future titles is damaged due to lower sales numbers and shredding their fan base
#4 the players lose because they lose choice and have their library locked in a 2nd rate predatory ecosystem
EGS represents the choice in the market, and the market can act on that. Developers have the choice to go on the store, and they have the choice to take exclusivity agreements, or they can choose to go on steam or to offer direct downloads. Customers and chose whether they want to purchase a game from EGS, or go elsewhere.
"a product exists that I don't like" is not "bad competition". If you don't like Epic Game Store, then continue to not use it and go to a competing service/game.
You guys are acting like the existence of the App Store has jacked up the app prices by 200%, whereas in reality there hasn't remotely been such a thing since the inception of the App Store.
No, we got free to play with endless micro transactions instead. I would have preferred the price bump.
But Apple _never_ delivered on that. Instead, Apple pushed "subscriptions", which is just another name for rental.
Subscription models produce lots of recurring revenue, so companies absolutely adore that model when they can get away with it.
I saw the same thing come up when people talked about wanting to maintain status quo for in-app payment options. Because, again, adding additional choices does not just make your current choice go away. You can still choose that apple-blessed option if thats what you want. Unless, of course, it turns out that theres a lot of unnecessary margin being added on and its actually not a profitable business model when faced with competition.
When I shop for games, I never pay the list price - ever. Well, maybe once every few years when I buy a game in the GoG store made by CD Projekt Red, which run the store but are also a publisher of AAA titles I really, really love. I pay full price for them because they really deserve it, and they get 100% of the well-deserved money if I buy in their store.
All the other games? I'll happily wait for a sale in one of the aforementioned stores, of which there are plenty and with huge rebates, because they must compete for me as a customer. First sales are usually coming just a few months after a games' release, and with lots of games to play still in my pipeline and less time to actually play them due to work, family and all that real-life stuff, I can usually muster the patience to wait for reduced prices.
Correction: all the apps that Apple thinks you need, regardless of whether or not it aligns with what you need or want.
With 20% global market share, plenty of countries don't care about Safari support.
The main problem with Internet Explorer in its hay day was that they did not play nice with other browser vendors and implemented features outside of the standard. Those features were then relied upon by website developers, causing many websites to only work on Internet Explorer. After all - most people were using internet explorer, why cater to anyone else?
Chrome is not quite in the same position as Internet Explorer was back then, but it's getting frighteningly close. There are several websites that only work on Chrome, and despite me not using Chrome as my primary browser I do have Chrome installed because for some websites I simply need Chrome. This is obviously very dangerous to the freedom of the internet.
Funnily enough Apple forcing iOS users to use Safari actually helps here. Because so many people use iOS and they need to use Safari, website developers need to cater to at least one non-Chrome web browser. That in turn makes it more likely they will also cater to others (e.g. Firefox) rather than relying on Chrome-only features.
There is your list.
Systemwide adblocking, non-Safari browser that wasn't artificially limited, ability to connect bluetooth mouse (mostly for when I used the iPad to remote into other computers), modified keyboard with a number row, file manager, some minor homescreen/launcher tweaks for usability, and one that allowed non-iPad apps to run at a higher resolution (at the time, non-universal apps would run in the old iPhone res, but scaled up instead of running at the higher, newer phone resolution).
I'm sure there were other little tweaks, but the main thing was that there weren't any decent Android or Windows tablet options at the time and while the iPad did many things quite well, there were all sorts of little quality of life things that I was just used to having. They weren't included in iOS and there was no way to (officially) change the launcher or keyboard or any of those other things.
It would have been quite nice to have other software repos besides just the App Store which didn't require me to exploit security flaws to use. Instead I just stopped buying iOS devices after that iPad.
So much for "There's an app for that".
The problem is that it creates a single point at which a state can impose restrictions on freedom, with no way to get around it for dissidents and other people who don't agree with it.
You should divorce your personal anti-competition desires from the non-personal discussion. Encouraging choice is often a better way to give more people what they want.
Having choice isn't always better. I think the Apple iOS store is a very clear example where choice leads to negative experience for users. As I've mentioned before, Apple collectively bargains on behalf of users against developers. They enforce (albeit imperfectly) certain standards and force nefarious developers to implement things like sign in with Apple.
They only, and I mean only, affect of releasing developers from the App Store is that they'll sign on with some 3rd party store, and if you want to use Spotify, or Netflix, or Facebook you'll get it from a 3rd party store where they charge the exact same prices but then infest the applications with hostile anti-patterns, tracking, etc. That's it. When you advocate for "choice" here, you're simply advocating for the choice for users to pay the same prices they've been paying except also being exposed to anti-patterns that Apple is working to prevent. Choice in this case, is clearly bad.
I'll also add, I have yet to hear a peep from Epic w.r.t having to go through Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo for releasing Fortnite via their locked-in app stores. The iPhone is no more or less a computing device than those are.
"Google is clearly making the right choice for me. Their motto is literally 'don't be evil'".
And in some respects it's true - A benevolent dictatorship is undeniably a great form of governance.
The problem (and this is a problem) is that benevolent dictatorships never, Never, NEVER stay benevolent.
At some point the guiding principles will change, or you will change, and you'll find yourself outside of the bubble you were so comfortable to live in.
Some of us are already outside of that bubble. I don't like not being able to run software of my choice on a device I (in theory only, in Apple's case) own.
Basically - I find this argument extremely short-sighted. It's trading any sense of long term thinking for the immediate convenience of letting someone else do the work for you in the short term. I have very, very little respect for this argument.
I just don't find this compelling and don't really care about it. There are lots of products to choose from, you can build your own stuff, buy a generic phone and load whatever you want on it, etc.
> The problem (and this is a problem) is that benevolent dictatorships never, Never, NEVER stay benevolent.
Then new products will arise when this happens.
> Basically - I find this argument extremely short-sighted. It's trading any sense of long term thinking for the immediate convenience of letting someone else do the work for you in the short term. I have very, very little respect for this argument.
We routinely delegate trust in society to experts and other accountable entities. It's like saying we shouldn't have an FDA and everybody should just make sure they aren't ingesting something that will kill them.
Also, can you clearly articulate what exactly I'm losing here with a single App Store? So far I just see more cons than pros.
No. My whole point is that you're clearly happy in your benevolent dictatorship.
But it really doesn't suite me. I just told you the reason I'm not happy, and you handily dismissed it as "not compelling". Which is fine. For you it probably isn't. For me, not having root on a device I own intended for general purpose computing is literally a no-go on every front. It's not just insulting, it's a literal threat to my source of income. I find it just as crazy as if Volvo told me I could only drive on Volvo certified roads. They may be great roads (the best roads, which will never damage the car, guaranteed!) but I don't give a shit. I bought the car to drive where I want to drive. I buy a computing device to run the software I want to run.
So that said, my real problem here is that both major mobile operating systems currently operate under this model. Google is marginally better (by the barest of margins).
So you claim that a new product will arise when Apple decides that you don't fit in their dictatorship, but watching what's happening with Google and search right now... Well, I'll quote you - "I just don't find this compelling"
Google is still the only player in search. Youtube is still the only player in video. New products are at best fringe products that don't gain traction, because there's a clear monopoly effect in play here.
I wouldn't call it that. I'm not really sure it's a dictatorship. But whatever.
> But it really doesn't suite me. I just told you the reason I'm not happy, and you handily dismissed it as "not compelling". Which is fine. For you it probably isn't. For me, not having root on a device I own intended for general purpose computing is literally a no-go on every front. It's not just insulting, it's a literal threat to my source of income. I find it just as crazy as if Volvo told me I could only drive on Volvo certified roads. They may be great roads (the best roads, which will never damage the car, guaranteed!) but I don't give a shit. I bought the car to drive where I want to drive. I buy a computing device to run the software I want to run.
I think the crux of the problem is you're buying something with different expectations than you should have. If Volvo in this case said hey we sell a Volvo car and you can only drive it on Volvo roads, then if you got mad you couldn't drive it on other roads YOU bought the wrong car.
There is nothing stopping you from buying an Android phone and rooting it. As an iPhone user, as you mentioned, I want exactly what Apple is providing, or else I'd buy a different device. So when you want to change the product I like for your own benefit, then we'll certainly be at odds and I'll continue to support and campaign to maintain what I desire in the iPhone directly against you.
> So you claim that a new product will arise when Apple decides that you don't fit in their dictatorship, but watching what's happening with Google and search right now... Well, I'll quote you - "I just don't find this compelling"
> Google is still the only player in search. Youtube is still the only player in video. New products are at best fringe products that don't gain traction, because there's a clear monopoly effect in play here.
Certainly disagree. Google has quite a few competitors, Amazon, Facebook, Apple itself (searching via Siri in iOS versus a web browser) not to mention incumbents like Bing and DDG who have taken a little bit of market share. There are alternatives that work just fine. As for Youtube, Spotify is coming after them and then you always have new products like TikTok, or streaming services like Twitch.
Again, we don't share the same perspective here. As a consumer, some of the products you've mentioned are acceptable substitutes. But I'm not just a consumer of digital products. I also produce them.
As a producer, there's really not the same sense of competition you seem to be implying here. Google owns 92.5% percent of the search marketshare (globally). Bing/DDG/Yahoo might as well be rounding errors in comparison. 90% of customers say that they primarily find new video content on Youtube. Vimeo is next. The products you've listed are not really direct competitors (and this is actually pretty normal, entrenched monopolies don't lose to direct competition, they eventually get replaced with paradigm shifts).
So to hammer home my point here - As a producer, I literally have to make results available on Google, and upload videos to Youtube in order to reach most of my audience.
Now - I also use those other services as well - I happily send folks to vimeo links instead of youtube, and DDG links instead of Google search. So at least I have some chance to promote those alternatives.
In Apple's case, I have to release on their app store. Except... wait a minute... I can't even try to promote a possible alternative! If you use an Iphone, you literally cannot choose to get my software through another channel.
They are enforcing their own store monopoly with their software dictatorship. And just like a car, no one is going to go out and buy a completely different phone to use my one app. It's just not practical.
Sure, I'm looking at things from a more broad market perspective so naturally I won't look at the individual case you experience. In the case of search I see Google under tremendous pressure. If you start your search on Facebook or Amazon, that's lost revenue for Google. Those are insanely popular companies. The fact that you are looking strictly at web search and that marketshare I think causes your perspective to be different, and in my view inaccurate when looking at the entire marketplace. Put another way, I don't really care about declining monopolies.
> In Apple's case, I have to release on their app store. Except... wait a minute... I can't even try to promote a possible alternative! If you use an Iphone, you literally cannot choose to get my software through another channel. They are enforcing their own store monopoly with their software dictatorship. And just like a car, no one is going to go out and buy a completely different phone to use my one app. It's just not practical.
It would be nice if you stopped throwing around terms like dictatorship so casually, especially given the connotations around that (murder, genocide, human suffering, etc.). I don't really see how Apple is a dictator any more than any other company is. They create a product, the iPhone. That device has certain features and capabilities. The fact that you don't have an alternative is a feature of the phone, because as I mentioned above it forces a collective bargaining situation for Apple on behalf of users. Why do you need an alternative to Apple's distribution network, and why should you not have to pay Apple for access to a revenue stream that they actually create and maintain? It doesn't make sense to me whatsoever that you would have that perspective. You just want to have your cake and eat it too, and I think that's greedy and unfair.
> And just like a car, no one is going to go out and buy a completely different phone to use my one app. It's just not practical.
Its' very practical. You can do it in an instance. iPhones have very high resale value. But people would rather have the iPhone and its App Store, over access to multiple app stores via Android, hence why they bought an iPhone.
The ability to shop based on price. The 30% fee is non-negotiable which guarantees a certain level of price gouging.
Apple is also known for implementing various anti-patterns and tracking, mostly related to promoting their own apps and cloud services over their competitors, so you lose any leverage you would have in getting them to stop that. You would have a better argument in favor of an app store monopoly if there wasn't a huge conflict of interest with them producing the hardware and selling these other services.
> The 30% fee is non-negotiable which guarantees a certain level of price gouging.
Well, if you don't want to pay that to get access to the user base that Apple created and maintains then don't pay it and don't have your app on the App Store. This is pretty easy. Heck, companies get around this all the time (Spotify for example).
Your argument that apple created and maintains the user base would be a lot stronger if google and all of the other phone makers were not quietly waiting to snatch up any customers that got sick of apple.
I can think of some things that I haven't seen mentioned yet:
1) Cross platform app stores. I'd like to be able to purchase an app on one store, and automatically have access to it on Mac/Windows/iOS/Android etc.
2) Alternate web browser engines. It's hard to know exactly how much we are missing out on here, since web sites usually won't use features that aren't available on iOS. But web browsers might not exist at all if platform owners had as much control over app distribution in the 90s as Apple does now. There may be web-browser like technologies (apps that can host interactive 3rd party content), or extensions to existing web tech that never get off the ground because there's no way for it to run on iOS.
3) Emulators, game streaming services from Microsoft / Google, full featured steam link, indie games that don't pay $99/yr so aren't available.
4) App store with better discoverability and recommendations
5) "Premium" app store that isn't a race to the bottom with free apps that are designed around continued advertising / in app purchases. Could be related to (4)
6) On iPad, a wide variety of general purpose productivity software. Developer tools, etc.
> Then new products will arise when this happens.
I think the argument is it's already very difficult for new entrants in the platform space (for phones, Microsoft spent billions and failed), but the only reason app stores are not competitive is they are tied together with the platform.
There's certainly also been some benefits of Apple acting as a de facto regulator of application software. I think in a world where alternate app stores are allowed the Apple app store would continue to be a very important storefront that most developers would not want to skip (although Apple might want to make improvements to it in order to compete more effectively). Of course, other app stores would also have their own rules and hopefully Apple would continue to enforce automatic security measures like sandboxing.
2) Hm, I see your point but I'm having a hard time envisioning what I'm missing out on. As I look at the web browser ecosystem on desktop, what features are we missing?
3) Not sure why this isn't possible? I think it's more of a limitation of interface than anything. Also why isn't Microsoft making their Xbox app available on Linux or macOS? Hmmm.
4) Eh, the App Store can be improved but I think you're reaching here.
5) As you said, related to #4. I have yet to see a premium model work. I don't think it does for many applications.
6) Yea that would be nice for developer tools, but the other limitations I don't see. You can install Office, JIRA, etc. on iPad.
> I think the argument is it's already very difficult for new entrants in the platform space (for phones, Microsoft spent billions and failed), but the only reason app stores are not competitive is they are tied together with the platform.
Sure, but the same is true of aircraft engines, investment banking, and any other specialized industry. Huawei and others will be competitive and will emerge as serious contenders. It just takes time. I also disagree with your assertion that app stores are not competitive, I don't think they need to be competitive. They just host the software. It's like downloading Spotify and then being confused that you can't put your own songs on it, or that you have to pay Spotify royalties.
2) The main things that come to mind are the same advantages of native apps vs web apps. Integration/access to native API features, CPU/GPU performance, etc. Web browsers can support these things but don’t always.
3) Those specific categories aren’t possible on iOS because Apple prohibits them! That is exactly why Stadia/xCloud isn’t available.
4) Discoverability is hard with tons of apps but it's probably not impossible to do better. There’s not a huge incentive for Google/Apple to fix this since they charge to advertise in the store, some other stores don’t do this.
5) I was thinking about console games here, Switch games are often pretty different from in app purchase based mobile ones.
I think the difference with engines etc is there are big network effects - people buy phones based on the ecosystem which is determined by existing market share. IMO this is why Windows Phone died and it’s not just a matter of enough money or technology.
We have to distinguish User Experience (short term comfort) from User Respect/Freedom/Rights. Choice is bad for UX, but it is good for avoiding abuses.
If you download FB, Instagram, TikTok, etc. on the app store those are malwares that collect all your data and Apple is doing absolutely nothing about it. ICloud is not even end-to-end encrypted. Let's stop this myth that Apple provides actual privacy.
Apple doesn't care about you, they care about power.
If they need to put "Privacy" in their ads for you to buy it, they'll do it. If they need to keep malwares on the app store to generate revenues, they'll do it (but they'll make sure you believe you are safe thx to their fake privacy propaganda).
It's true other game platforms are closed but first we have more choice :
Mobile gaming = Google or Apple
Home gaming = Nintendo, Xbox, PlayStation, Linux/Windows/Mac, Steam, Itch.io, GameJolt, Windows store, Epic game store, Origin/Ubisoft/Blizzard, etc.
Second : it's not about gaming only, it's about the right of people to control the device they bought.
Iphone & Google have a far bigger monopoly and control on our life than an Xbox sitting in our living room, so it makes sense to worry about Apple and Google first.
I think most people don't really want that right. Myself included. I like the iPhone as it is and don't see any advantages to changing the operating model. Maybe if you're a developer you don't like it, so in that case I just say too bad and just don't develop for the iPhone if it isn't profitable for you.
All this talk about "freedom" and "rights" is quite a bit of misguided grandstanding if you ask me.
"I bought an Xbox, where are my rights as a general computing device!11!" Give me a break.
If you want all this stuff to "change' then go ahead and start with making Blizzard allow me to publish my independent games on their App Store with no review process and no revenue cut. Make Microsoft let me play Nintendo Switch games on my Xbox. Make game developers make all of their games cross-platform, no more Windows-exclusive games.
The iPad Pro, the iPad and iPhone is are not general computing devices, but more like gaming consoles? Wow.
Apart from that, gaming consoles subsidize or barely eke out a profit for their hardware, whereas Apple charges buyers a huge margin on the phones. I'll agree to the forced 30% cut if Apple cuts their phone prices by 50%.
Don't fight five enemies when defeating one will defeat all five.
It'll be interesting to see what happens. If they win this case (unlikely) it will cause a lot of changes. It really is an interesting case though. I see applications across multiple industries and services (Amazon, Best Buy, Wal-Mart, etc.) as well as Microsoft, Sony, Nintendo, and others.
If you can bypass the Apple App Store, I'm not finding a compelling reason that you can't bypass ANY App Store or similar product. If Nintendo sells a new console, they'll have to let you install any app store. Hell, why can't I create my own app store and publish it? Why only Epic?
Yes, I really enjoy ads every seven and a half seconds for games I am not even allowed to buy to remove ads.
Not sure how higher prices for consumer is great for the consumer. I get the convenience argument, but not every consumer is willing to pay higher prices just for that. There is a huge difference between a 2-5% fee like CC merchants charge and a 30% across the board fee on the app store.
The App Store is also a service for distribution. If it wasn't there, I would be forced to invest much more in marketing, cloud services and all kinds of "small things" which are not the primary purpose of my apps. If anything, my apps would be more expensive outside the store.
If the default app stores provides as much value as you claim, developers would continue to distribute there, pay the fees, and consumers would go there for discoverability and convenience. Let consumers decide.
With options, consider maybe someone could provide those services even better / more cheaply and you also benefit as a developer.
Also if I want to buy a subscription for soemthing like Intellij as a developer I would feel like garbage to use a store and give a 30% cut to Microsoft or Apple for the privilege of allowing me to install something, the developers deserve those money and a big corporation because they host some files.
I don't think the exclusives are good for users, but from a developer perspective this is an oversimplification. Epic is essentially pre-funding games.
If you're an indie dev who's been working on a game for 3-5 years, literally everything you have is riding on that release going well. It's incredibly stressful.
So suddenly this billionaire shows up and says, "no content changes, no interference, we'll just guarantee up front that your game is profitable. We'll just give you the money to justify the last 5 years of your life, and after 6-12 months you can sell wherever." Of course developers take that. Suddenly you have the freedom to be experimental, to make games that are personal and niche without worrying about going broke.
There's a real sense in which PC exclusives are bad for the industry overall, I don't like the direction the market is headed. But from a developer perspective Epic has been pretty objectively good for indie games. The lost revenue from not being on Steam means nothing if Epic is willing to fund your game upfront. Think about how much peace of mind that means as a developer, to not have everything riding on a single launch, to not have to spend months leading up to launch getting sick worrying about what's going to happen.
And also let's be real, from a user perspective we had Steam exclusives, even if Valve didn't directly require them. I buy my games exclusively DRM free, I won't use Steam or Epic. The number of games that refuse to release outside of Steam, or who tie their multiplayer and modding communities to Steam's servers have been a pain in my side for over a decade. There are games on GoG that are missing patches and that will never get multiplayer, because Steam just happened to release frameworks encouraging devs to make themselves utterly dependent on Valve's infrastructure.
I won't install the Epic game store on my computer. But at least a game that's exclusive to Epic games store eventually becomes non-exclusive -- on average, I'll end up getting access to it later. Most of the games that get released exclusively on Steam never get ported off and I never get access to them. It's a little bit irritating to hear people pine for the day when most devs were still effectively releasing store exclusives, just without any extra compensation and to a storefront that more people happened to use.
If a developer chooses to only publish on steam, that's not really the platforms fault, is it? I dislike that some games use steam login/servers as well, but there is a trade-off: those steam servers will probably exist 10 years from now, where a lot of multiplayer games simply shut down their servers and you're out of luck. If Valve open sourced their steam infra, that would alleviate problems with self-hosting those games while allowing the devs ease of use and guaranteed infra.
>I won't install the Epic game store on my computer.
I won't either, and neither would I install steam, except for inertia (250 games bought).
As far as devs go, EGS gives a better cut, offers stability with timed exclusivity deals, and arguably are the ones who forced steam to lower their cut to 30/25/20 on high sales figures.
It's complicated. Using Steam's infrastructure for multiplayer and mod support means that the game will only work with Steam. Valve isn't stupid, the reason they offer those services is to encourage games to be Steam exclusives. It's not an accident that Valve has no terms or options for developers releasing on other platforms to tie into those same servers.
Now, is it nice for developers that they don't have to pay for servers and that they get an easy API to integrate with them? Sure. Is it good for the consumer? No, not in any long-term way that wouldn't also apply to Epic funding games.
I will make the argument that what Epic is doing is better for the consumer than what Valve is doing. Epic exclusives are timed, eventually games leave the platform. Valve's infrastructure changes the way a game is built, it has to be re-engineered to work anywhere else. If a game is tied into those frameworks, it's very unlikely that it will ever leave Steam.
For the most part, developers that use Steam's features end up releasing gimped versions of their game elsewhere -- you buy a game on GoG and it's literally just missing features. This is especially frustrating for mods, you get cut off from the entire community. I think fragmenting the PC market so that different versions of the same game exist on different storefronts with no indication of the "proper" place to buy a game is way more toxic and harmful to the end consumer than forcing them to wait 6-12 months to play a new release.
I agree open sourcing that infrastructure would go a huge way towards alleviating the problem. If GoG could offer their own multiplayer servers that were compatible with Steam games, that would be huge. Even better if players could set up their own compatible servers for GoG games, that would be amazing. But there's very little incentive for Valve to do that. They benefit tremendously from games hard-coding those servers and making them impossible to change.
And that's not to say that what Epic is doing is good. I generally think that we should be discouraging exclusives, or at least making it easier for users to move their games between storefronts without installing new clients. Buying games from the Epic store wouldn't really be a problem if they were DRM free and you could download them from a web client, at that point I wouldn't care about exclusives at all.
My point is more that I don't think that what Epic is doing is bad in a way that makes them unsuited to bring this case, or that the way they're disrupting the status quo on PC is uniquely evil or something. Pretty much any dev you talk to will be happy to see Valve getting more competition. We don't want Valve to be taking 30% of our game revenue.
Developers are making an educated choice to take their games exclusive, in exchange for guaranteed revenue. Sometimes that can be make-or-break for a game.
You’re acting as if steam doesn’t have exclusive games either - I play Destiny 2 which is only available on Steam (on PC). I would not be surprised that larger games/publishers get negotiated terms on the store which comes with contractual exclusivity clauses.
I still don't get how the exclusives are a good deal for the creators. They get more publicity and probably some extra money for the contract. But does it really offset the lost sales? There was a large number of times when I went though: this game looks awesome, I'll buy it, oh it's exclusive for whatever-platform-i-don't-have, ... and likely not remember about it ever again. I even bought similar games which are available on platforms I already have instead.
This is great for smaller devs as you basically have 0 advertising budget and rely on worth of mouth for your game to be a success or not. So you can take guaranteed money and pay yourself (and your employees) or take the gamble and hope your game sells well.
Also Epic takes smaller cut then Valve does on Steam. (12% vs 30%)
Also these exclusives to Epic are timed. So after a couple months the developer is free to publish their game on Steam/GOG/Windows Store/whatever PC platform (Epic store exclusivity does not apply for consoles)
But I was also thinking in terms of actual platforms like "Xbox only for N months"
Digital collections certainly have privacy tradeoffs. Though I'm quite happy with many of the upsides: cross-play, automatic cloud save, (sometimes) cross-save, no disc swapping, fewer things to clutter my living space.
I don't know about PS/Xbox, but the situation is probably similar.
If you want to play any Valve games without Steam then you're out of luck.
Having another store is a low barrier to entry.
Imagine there was only one store for groceries in your whole state. And when you go to court a chorus rebukes you for not selling your produce there instead of opening another nearby.
Yes, there is nuance that I left out of my post. I agree with you here.
>If you want to play any Valve games without Steam then you're out of luck.
If you want to play any Epic games without Epic game store, you're out of luck as well.
I have no problem with another store, I have problems with another store having exclusives which do not benefit the consumer in any way (directly).
The "Epic Client" asks you for payment details, collects all kinds of private information and doesn't let you do anything unless it's up to date and connected to the internet. (DRM hello?)
Then you go to the Windows Store to buy that candy crush ad that's been sitting in your Start Menu for no reason and oh surprise, they are asking for payment details again!
Doesn't sound like a win for consumers to me.
In plenty of cases this exclusivity also shut down cross platform support of the games. Fundraisers planned macOS and Linux versions of the games, but when Epic purchased exclusive rights they were effectively made Windows exclusives as well (Epic's store is only available on Windows).
We have so many options on PC that the few exclusives can be entirely ignored.
they're complaining about monopolies, while attempting to create them
I do not find it surprising that a store asks for payment details when I purchase an item.
Steam has been taking huge cuts from developers. Steam also killed discoverability.
Game devs almost gave up on PC because steam killed the platform. Check out GDC talks on the "indiepocalypse".
Yes, Steam has a lot of nice QoL features on their 20 year old platform that 2 year old platforms don't have. But new platforms force them to, you know, compete instead of extract value from the ecosystem.
The consumer benefit is in terms of games that wouldn't have existed otherwise because they're economically viable now.
In 2009, 343 games were published on Steam.
In 2010, 308 games.
In 2011, 300 games.
In 2012, 377 games. Valve introduced Greenlight, allowing developers to create a page for their game and selling those that gathered the most interest.
In 2013, 511 games. Valve expanded Greenlight, lowering the threshold to enter the platform
In 2014, 1641 games.
In 2015, 2732 games.
In 2016, 4489 games.
In 2017, 6508 games. Valve introduced Steam Direct, allowing anyone to sell their game once they complete the paperwork.
In 2018, 8237 games.
In 2019, 7950 games.
When Valve was the gatekeeper, only a lucky few indie developers made it onto the platform. However, with less than 1 game being released per day, there was plenty of space for these new games on the front page. With over 21 games released per day, being available on Steam is no longer a competitive advantage.
Valve "killed discoverability" in favor of availability. Epic's store has advantages such as a lower cut, subsidized by Fortnite money. It also has disadvantages (not available in many countries, missing features, reviews, and social functionality). There is definitely a place for a smaller, curated store, where only one or two games are put out per day, which is what Epic is aiming for.
This is sarcasm, right? How can you buy stuff without payment details?
>collects all kinds of private information
Like what? Moreover, does steam (or other digital storefronts) not collect the same information?
> doesn't let you do anything unless it's up to date and connected to the internet. (DRM hello?)
You clearly missed all the "steam updating" memes from the early/mid 2000s.
Not for Linux gamers who can no longer play Rocket League
Epic competing with Steam has been a great success for everyone I think. Developers get secure funding for games that they otherwise wouldnt be able to make. Consumers get more games, plus they get hefty discounts or even just free games. Ideally we would then see Valve/Steam trying to compete in response.
It's win/win/win.